Political Law Review Case Digests Dean Sedfrey Candelaria

DECS v. San DiegoG.R. No. 89572 | February 21, 1989 | Justice Cruz

Petitioners: Department of Education, Culture & Sports, and Director of Center for Educational MeasurementRespondents: Roberto Rey San Diego & RTC-Valenzuela Judge Teresita Capulong

Summary: Roberto San Diego graduated from UE with a degree in Zoology. Wanting to be a doctor, he took the NMAT three times, but failed at every attempt. Pursuant to MECS Order No. 12, providing that a student who failed the NMAT 3 consecutive times may not be allowed to retake it for a 4th time, his application for a retake was rejected. Invoking the rights to academic freedom & quality education, he filed case in the RTC-Valenzuela City, which ruled in his favor. I: W/N a person who thrice failed the NMAT is entitled to take it again. NO! This is a proper subject of police power. The three-flunk rule is intended to insulate the medical schools and ultimately the medical profession from the intrusion of those not qualified to be doctors. While every person is entitled to aspire to be a doctor, he does not have a constitutional right to be a doctor. This is true of any other calling in which the public interest is involved.

Facts: Roberto San Diego is a graduate of the University of the East with a degree of Bachelor of Science in Zoology. He claims that he took the NMAT three times and flunked it as many times. Under MECS Order No. 12, Series of 1972 A student shall be allowed only three (3) chances to take the NMAT. After three (3)

successive failures, a student shall not be allowed to take the NMAT for the fourth time. When he applied to take it again, his application was rejected. He went to the RTC of Valenzuela to compel his admission to the test. He invoked his constitutional rights to academic freedom and quality education. By agreement of the parties, San Diego was allowed to take the NMAT scheduled on April 16, 1989, subject to the outcome of his

petition. In an amended petition filed with leave of court, he squarely challenged the constitutionality of MECS Order No. 12, Series of 1972 He also invoked his right to due process and equal protection RTC Declared the challenged order invalid and granting the petition and that San Diego had been deprived of his right to

pursue a medical education through an arbitrary exercise of the police power.

Issue: Whether a person who has thrice failed the National Medical Admission Test (NMAT) is entitled to take it again. NO!!!Held: WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision of the respondent court, is REVERSED, with costs against the private respondent. It is so ordered.

Ratio: Tablarin v. Gutierrez upheld the constitutionality of NMAT as a measure intended to limit the admission to medical schools only

to those who have initially proved their competence and preparation for a medical education

Agdamag | Anderson |Aquino |De Guzman | Empaynado | Estremadura| Lopez| Macabagdal | Magtoto | Meer |Mercado| Militante |Pineda |Squillantini| Taruc

1

Political Law Review Case Digests Dean Sedfrey Candelaria

o The State can regulate the practice of medicine in all its branches as a reasonable method of protecting the health and safety of the public. Legislation and administrative regulations requiring those who wish to practice medicine first to take and pass medical board examinations have long ago been recognized as valid exercises of governmental power. The establishment of minimum medical educational requirements-i.e., the completion of prescribed courses in a recognized medical school-for admission to the medical profession, has also been sustained as a legitimate exercise of the regulatory authority of the state.

o Purpose of MECS Order No. 52 – for the improvement of the professional and technical quality of the graduates of medical schools, by upgrading the quality of those admitted to the student body of the medical schools. That upgrading can only be done by limiting admission to those who exhibit in the required degree the aptitude for medical studies and eventually for medical practice.

The Tablarin case is applicable in the case at bar. We believe that the government is entitled to prescribe an admission test like the NMAT as a means of achieving its stated

objective of "upgrading the selection of applicants into our medical schools" and of "improving the quality of medical education in the country."

The subject of the challenged regulation is certainly within the ambit of the police power . It is the right and indeed the responsibility of the State to insure that the medical profession is not infiltrated by incompetents to whom patients may unwarily entrust their lives and health.

The method employed by the challenged regulation is not irrelevant to the purpose of the law nor is it arbitrary or oppressive. The three-flunk rule is intended to insulate the medical schools and ultimately the medical profession from the intrusion of those not qualified to be doctors. While every person is entitled to aspire to be a doctor, he does not have a constitutional right to be a doctor. This is true of any other calling in which the public interest is involved.

The right to quality education invoked by the private respondent is not absolute. The Constitution also provides that "every citizen has the right to choose a profession or course of study, subject to fair, reasonable and equitable admission and academic requirements.

The private respondent must yield to the challenged rule and give way to those better prepared. EPC – there is a substantial distinction between medical students and other students who are not subjected to the NMAT

and the three-flunk rule. The Court feels that it is not enough to simply invoke the right to quality education as a guarantee of the Constitution: one must

show that he is entitled to it because of his preparation and promise.

Agdamag | Anderson |Aquino |De Guzman | Empaynado | Estremadura| Lopez| Macabagdal | Magtoto | Meer |Mercado| Militante |Pineda |Squillantini| Taruc

2